There's a term I've been trying to understand for some time now... the "strict constructionist" view of our US Constitution, which is advocated by no small number of self-described "conservatives" in our nation -- including a few of my friends.
I think I get that it has something to do with applying the Constitution "only as it is written"-- thereby requiring judges and other enforcers of the law to resist the temptation to "legislate" from the bench.
Seeking to interpret the law in any way is a big-time no-no from this point of view; judges who participate in such helter-skelter behavior have been served their walking papers in recent days as the tide of "original intent" has swept over a number of legal beachheads.
And, of course, many who favor the Tea Party movement, of not inconsiderable note in our country, are of this judicial persuasion -- including freshly-minted Rep. Mike Lee of Utah, who has been at the forefront of the Constitution-waving demonstrations that have peppered the start of the 112th Congress.
As I said in a previous post (see Except the Parts We Don't Like, below) I'm all for waving the Constitution -- though I'd actually prefer that more people READ it. And that goes double for the men and women who serve us as our congresspersons in Washington.
Mr. Lee recently made a great show of his understanding of how far our federal government has over-extended its reach in jurisprudence. He deftly and "expertly" explained how the US Congress erred in the early 1900's by outlawing the practice of child labor. (I'm not making this up...you can catch his campaign video clip here!)
His basic argument? Yes, we all know that child labor is bad; but, the Congress had no right or authority to regulate it. That should have been an issue of states' rights and the Feds should have left it alone. He even cites a Supreme Court decision that illustrates his point: Hammer v. Dagenhart, 1918.
Clearly, Mr. Lee intones, the Supreme Court recognized that the founders would NEVER have weighed in on such an issue -- and, therefore, neither should we today similarly cede power to the central government even in a situation involving clear moral hazard. (emphasis and interpretation mine)
Evidently this speech played well to the base, as they say, since Mr. Lee is now Rep. Lee. But there's just one tiny flaw in his reasoning. The Supreme Court reversed itself in 1941, in a case known as United States v. Darby:
The conclusion is inescapable that Hammer v. Dagenhart was a departure from the principles which have prevailed in the interpretation of the Commerce Clause both before and since the decision and that such vitality, as a precedent, as it then had has long since been exhausted. It should be and now is overruled. (emphasis mine; quote from Sec. 117 of the decision, which you can read in its entirety here)
Wait a minute...the Supreme Court says that there is a "principle of interpretation" that must be considered when fiddling with the whole rule-of-law-thingy?
And, by the way, Mr. Lee kind of didn't mention that the Court overturned itself on the very case he cites as the pinnacle of his interpretation. Well, how do you like them apples?
Guess we'll just have to wait and see what else the Tea Party has brewing for us in Washington now!
No comments:
Post a Comment